REGISTRAR GENERAL, CALCUTTA HIGH COURT versus SHRINIVAS PRASAD SHAH AND OTHERS,

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 03-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 211 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, CALCUTTA HIGH COURT 
v. 
SHRINIVAS PRASAD SHAH AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4282 of 2013) 
MAY 3, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
WEST BENGAL 
SCHEDULED 
CASTES AND 
SCHEDULED TRIBES (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 1994: 
s.5 - Issuance of certificate -
Competent authority -
West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2007-· 
Respondent claiming to be a member of Scheduled Tribe on 
A 
B 
C· 
the basis of certificate issued by Director, Backward Class 
Welfare, West Bengal - Treated as a general category 
candidate - Held: The notification specifically stipulates that D 
a candidate belonging to SC/ST/BC must have a certificate 
in support of his/her claim from a competent authority as 
specified under the Act -
There is no effor in the decision 
taken by the Commission in not entertaining respondent's 
application as a ST candidate since no certificate was 
E 
produced from competent authority - However, respondent 
would be appointed as a Judicial Officer consequent to the 
examination conducted in 2010 wherein he appeared by 
producing the certificate issued by competent authority. 
The respondent In terms of Notification dated 
17.1.2007, submitted his application for West Bengal 
Judicial Service Examination 2007 by paying an amount 
F 
of Rs.2001· as required by General category candidates. 
However In the application he mentioned that he 
G 
belonged to "Gonda Community", a Scheduled Tribe and 
also attached a certificate from the Director, Backward 
Class Welfare, West Bengal. The Commission considered 
him as a general candidate as he had not produced the 
211 
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A certificate from the competent authority. The writ petition 
filed by him was allowed by the Single Judge of the High 
Court. The Division Bench declined to interfere. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. This Court is of the considered opinion 
that in view of the specific legislation passed by the West 
Bengal State Legislature Assembly i.e. West Bengal 
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) 
Act, 1994, and the specific stipulation in the notification 
C issued to the candidates, the guideline 10 of para 13 of 
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case is inapplicable, particularly to 
the facts of the instant case. The Act does not recognize 
the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal as a 
competent authority to issue the certificate. Therefore, 
o the Commission was justified in not placing reliance on 
the certificate issued by the Director, Backward Class 
Welfare, West Bengal. [para 13] [220-G-H; 221-A] 
Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional 
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, 1994 (3) 
E Suppl. SCR 50 = (1994) 6 SCC 241 - held inapplicable. 
1.2. In the instant case, the Court is not concerned 
with dispute that is pending before the Scrutiny 
Committee. This is a case of total non-compliance of the 
F conditions stipulated in the notification dated 
17.1.2007(information to the candidates) wherein it has 
been specifically stated that a candidate ·claiming to be 
SC/ST/BC must have a certificate in support of his/her 
claim from a competent authority specified in the West 
G Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes 
(Identification) Act, 1994. There is no error in the decision 
taken by the Commission in not entertaining the 
respondent's application as a ST candidate since no 
certificate was produced from the competent authority, 
H as provided under the Act. Consequently, in the absence 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, CALCUTIA HIGH COURT v. 
213 
SHRINIVAS PRASAD SHAH 
of the requisite certificate, the Commission was justified 
A 
in treating him as a general category candidate. [para 12 
and 15) [220-B-D; 222-B-C] 
1.3: The guidelines in in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case 
or the brochure issued by the Government of India, 
8 
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 
Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi would 
not override the specific conditions stipulated in the 
notification (information to the candidates) of compliance 
of the provisions of the West BengalAct of 1994. [para 16) 
C 
[222-D-E] 
1.4. Further, clause 13.,2 of Chapter 13 of the brochure 
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, 
Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of 
Personnel and Training, New Delhi is also inapplicable in 
D 
view of the statutory provision incorporated in the West 
Bengal Act of 199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.